Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 19STCV39466, Date: 2024-07-01 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 19STCV39466, Date: 2024-07-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV39466 Hearing Date: July 1, 2024 Dept: 61

AECOM ENERGY & CONSTRUCTION, INC. vs GARY G. TOPOLEWSKI, et al.

TENTATIVE

Defendant Gary Topolewski’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production from Plaintiff URS Holdings, Inc. is DENIED. Sanctions are awarded against Topolewski, in favor of Plaintiff, and in the amount of $5,238.00, payable within 30 days.

Plaintiff to give notice.

DISCUSSION

I. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER

“A party may demand that any other party produce . . . a document that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010(b).) The demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that (1) a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete, (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or (3) an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(a).) “The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand,” and “[t]he motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b).)

A motion to compel a further response to an inspection demand must set forth specific facts showing “good cause” justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1); Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) Unless there is a legitimate privilege issue or claim of attorney work product, that burden is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance. (TBG Ins. Services Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 444.) Once the moving party demonstrates good cause for the discovery, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully respond to the inspection demand. (Coy v Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220.)

Defendant Gary Topolewski (Defendant) seeks further responses to Requests for Production No. 2–6, which seek documents related to Plaintiff URS Holdings, Inc.’s (Plaintiff) ownership of Morrison Knudsen and associated marks. (See Separate Statement.) Plaintiff responded with objections, and as to Request No. 4 (which seeks documents related to the sale of Morrison Knudsen) redacted copies of the purchase and sale agreements. (Ibid.) Defendant contends that such documents are necessary to assess Plaintiff’s standing to bring this fraudulent transfer action.

No good cause supports the requests. Plaintiff’s standing to support the action is the product of the entry of judgment in its favor against Defendant in another action. (Opposition RJN Exh. 1.) Plaintiff’s standing to prosecute that action is not at issue in this action. Indeed, Defendant’s motion and reply papers scarcely mention the judgment that is the foundation for this action.

The motion is therefore GRANTED.

II. SANCTIONS

Statute provides that the court shall impose sanctions upon a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to interrogatories, requests for production of documents, or requests for admission, absent substantial justification otherwise. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300, subd. (d); 2031.310, subd. (h); 2033.290, subd. (d).)

Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $10,000.00, representing a discount on 24 hours of attorney work at $436.50 per hour, plus ten hours of attorney work at $607.50, which would yield a total of $16,551.00. (Hiatt Decl. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff asks that the court condition Topolewski’s right to conduct further discovery upon the payment of this amount, or else direct that it be made payable by him and his attorneys. (Opposition at p. 10.)

The amount of fees sought is excessive in relation to the simplicity of the issues on this motion. A more reasonable amount would be $5,238.00, or 12 hours of work at the lesser hourly rate identified in the Hiatt Declaration. Plaintiff has not identified good cause for the unusual step of conditioning Topolewski’s right to conduct discovery upon the payment of sanctions. Accordingly, sanctions are awarded against Topolewski and his counsel in the amount of $5,238.00.